Is the church a public biulding? If so, then, all oddity aside, the second party had as much right to be there as the writer. Supose, instead of a wedding party, it had been a group of tourists outside a historical church. WOuld the bride have the right to turn them away?

Regardless of this, I think the bride mishandled it. She should have told a church official, with the authority to take appropriate measures.

Is the church a public biulding? If so, then, all oddity aside, the second party had as much right to be there as the writer. Supose, instead of a wedding party, it had been a group of tourists outside a historical church. WOuld the bride have the right to turn them away?

Regardless of this, I think the bride mishandled it. She should have told a church official, with the authority to take appropriate measures.

Churches aren't "public" buildings in the tradition sense. The groom (not bride) states that this incident took place in the Church's courtyard, which is the church's property. And if someone is using the church's building or grounds, they have priority over people who aren't using it, in much the same way that historical churches don't allow tourists to roam around the front of the Church when there is a Mass going on.

The groom also asked the custodians of the Church to do something, and they didn't want to do it. He asked them nicely, and they wouldn't move.

Is the church a public biulding? If so, then, all oddity aside, the second party had as much right to be there as the writer. Supose, instead of a wedding party, it had been a group of tourists outside a historical church. WOuld the bride have the right to turn them away?

Regardless of this, I think the bride mishandled it. She should have told a church official, with the authority to take appropriate measures.

I would assume the bridal party that was being married at the church had PAID for the privilige of being there. Which I would assume includes the privilige of having their photographer they had hired for their wedding set up properly for their photographs without interference. Regarding tourists, I would assume that historical churches would have the sense to not schedule tour groups at the same time as somebody's wedding. I may be wrong.I think the groom handled things the best he could. The custodians were clearly refusing to do anything or were being ignored. The groom tried to be polite and was being ignored by the entitlement wedding until he stood in front of the photographer and blocked the shots. Some people will not understand a more polite form of discouragement.

Is the church a public biulding? If so, then, all oddity aside, the second party had as much right to be there as the writer. Supose, instead of a wedding party, it had been a group of tourists outside a historical church. WOuld the bride have the right to turn them away?

No. If we took your reasoning of it being a "public building" to its furthest extent, then churches couldn't forbid anyone from getting married on their property and couldn't charge a fee for use.

Even the traditional idea of a "public building" (i.e. one owned by the people through the government) doesn't support this. I can't march into a courtroom with a wedding party and start taking photos -- not without the court's permission. But a courthouse is certainly a "public building." Even though a building is open to the public, there is no absolute right for anyone to do anything in particular with in, on or around that building.

Finally, on churches being "public." They are not public in a legal sense. They are private property. I did a search the last time this came up and couldn't find any laws insisting that churches are public in that sense. Just like any private property, they can ban whomever they wish, and charge whatever fees they wish. The fact that most churches have a policy of being open to (the majority of) the public, doesn't mean that they are in all circumstances to all people.

As for the photography of an historical church. Some churches ban photography entirely. The church is completely right to do that. Some charge a nominal fee. They're ok with that, too. The bride paid the church for the use of the facilities and the ability to photograph them. Unless the contract stated otherwise, I think that she has the right to insist that other people not be in the picture.

Logged

Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bow lines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

Mina

How tacky (mainly on account of the other folks' rude behavior) and amusing! I'd love to hear the other folks' perspective - were they literally trying to pretend for their wedding album that this was the church where they got married, or were they just taking advantage of the scenic backdrop, which might have been a popular event photo spot in the area? When my parents got married, their photographer took them to a private college campus several miles away that had some pretty buildings and nice landscaping for their photos; my undergrad college was also a private institution, and practically every week I'd see bridal parties, quinceañera groups, and photographers with professional lighting scurrying around, sometimes partially blocking the outdoor quads in between classes when hundreds of students were milling about. Even on our graduation day this year, there was a quinceñera group taking photos in the midst of graduates and their families trying to take photos and socialize after the ceremony.

I was attending a nephew's wedding and learned that this actually happens regularly at the particular LDS temple where he was married. Brides apparently like it because it looks like a big white "castle." Fortunately the grounds are very large and no one has been aggressive, but it seems a bit odd. The ones in strapless dresses are a giveaway.

I was attending a nephew's wedding and learned that this actually happens regularly at the particular LDS temple where he was married. Brides apparently like it because it looks like a big white "castle." Fortunately the grounds are very large and no one has been aggressive, but it seems a bit odd. The ones in strapless dresses are a giveaway.

The only thing more bizarre than using a random place of worship for the photos is using a religious building where the clothing of the wedding party directly contradict the rules of that religion.

We were married in a park, which is certainly public. We made a reservation at the Council office but did not have to pay a fee. They had the reservation system specifically to avoid having two overlapping events.

Churches in the US are private property and can have people removed. I think the Groom should have had the custodians or church ladies call the cops to remove the party (not arrest them just get them to leave.)

What is confusing is many churches will not let you have a "private" wedding. You can't ban someone from attending unless you have an RO they would be violating.

I know a couple of people that wanted to ban X's that they were afraid would cause a scene or object to the wedding. To a person they were told that anyone that showed up would be allowed into the sanctuary.

I was attending a nephew's wedding and learned that this actually happens regularly at the particular LDS temple where he was married. Brides apparently like it because it looks like a big white "castle." Fortunately the grounds are very large and no one has been aggressive, but it seems a bit odd. The ones in strapless dresses are a giveaway.

The only thing more bizarre than using a random place of worship for the photos is using a religious building where the clothing of the wedding party directly contradict the rules of that religion.

I was attending a nephew's wedding and learned that this actually happens regularly at the particular LDS temple where he was married. Brides apparently like it because it looks like a big white "castle." Fortunately the grounds are very large and no one has been aggressive, but it seems a bit odd. The ones in strapless dresses are a giveaway.

The only thing more bizarre than using a random place of worship for the photos is using a religious building where the clothing of the wedding party directly contradict the rules of that religion.

Are strapless dresses banned by LDS?

Yes, strapless dresses a banned. I believe that dresses must have sleeves and the neckline must be of a certain hight.

this has happened to me, when i was at university. due to a heatwave and a broken air conditioning system, my class of 30 were forced to take our class outside...well i say forced, but i was fantastic. the lecturer told us to get food and drink and we sat by the stunning lake next to the grounds, enjoyed our food and shared our thoughts about Shakespeare, when a wedding parry (and this was during the week) came over to the grounds and began to take pictures. now the grounds were very old and very stunning and several places were used at venues at the weekend, so we were used to this site. As my lecturer was concentrating on our class, he decided to ignore them...until they came over to him and asked us to move, so they could use the lake as a backdrop! in the discussion with my lecturer which will take me way to long to type. they confessed they were not part of a previous wedding, but had decided the uni was so pretty, three wanted to take the pitcures there. in my tutors best tone, he told them they had 5 minutes and then to clear off before he called camopus security. to there credit they complied, but it was a nice anecdote o the the class

As far as notifying a church authority, it is entirely possible one wasn't there yet. They would show up in time to doe the ceremony, not for the photos. I would imagine a pastor/priest probably wouldn't want to be there too much before the service - especially if they might have to do a regular service later that afternoon/evening.

The church we go to is an old stone gothicy building across from one of the city's lakes. After their wedding, my friends wanted to take pictures outside, and had to shoo another wedding party away. The other couple hadn't been married at our church, but wanted wedding pictures with a "church that looks more like a church than their church".

I was attending a nephew's wedding and learned that this actually happens regularly at the particular LDS temple where he was married. Brides apparently like it because it looks like a big white "castle." Fortunately the grounds are very large and no one has been aggressive, but it seems a bit odd. The ones in strapless dresses are a giveaway.

The only thing more bizarre than using a random place of worship for the photos is using a religious building where the clothing of the wedding party directly contradict the rules of that religion.

Are strapless dresses banned by LDS?

Not exactly. But once a person has gone through the Temple he or she commits to a higher level of modesty than has been required previously. So, someone who hadn't ever been through the Temple might wear a strapless or sleeveless dress (although if they are LDS, they most likely won't wear something like that to the Temple), but a bride who was leaving the Temple after her wedding will be wearing a top with sleeves.

Logged

In the United States today, there is a pervasive tendency to treat children as adults, and adults as children. The options of children are thus steadily expanded, while those of adults are progressively constricted. The result is unruly children and childish adults. ~Thomas Szasz